Development of Creative Commons licenses

[wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>]

Rob Myers wrote:
>On 26 Nov 2005, at 02:37, j lipszyc wrote:
>
>> I don't understand that. I agree that changes we make in 3.0 would  
>> make
>> also previously relased works GFDL compatible, but why you think  
>> this is
>> not legally possible?
>
>BY-SA clause 4b states:
>
>"You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly  
>digitally perform a Derivative Work [...] under the terms of [...] a  
>later version of this License with the same License Elements as this  
>License, [...]"
>
>So any 2.0 or 2.5 or work may be included in a 3.0-licensed  
>derivative. But the 2.0 and 2.5 licenses do not include the author's  
>permission to re-license the work either as FDL or under a license  
>that allows FDL re-licensing.
>
>Therefore BY-SA 3.0 cannot include FDL cross-licensing.

I can argue this is not the case. 

What 2.0 and 2.5 said was that "derivative work could be 
licensed under 3.0, and 3.0 may include further ways to 
switching to different licenses through creating a 
derivative." 

Creating a derivative of 2.0'd Work and releasing it 
under FDL is not something 2.0 permits to a licensee. 

Creating a derivative of 2.0'd Work and releasing it 
under yet-to-be-published 3.0 is something 2.0 permits 
to a licensee. 

Creating a derivative of that particular 3.0'd derivative 
and releasing it under whichever license that is okayed 
in 3.0, is something 2.0 permits to a licensee. 


Best Regards, 

Tomos